BOA 11-08-2004

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

November 8, 2004

The Chairman, Mr. Peter McNamara, called the meeting to order at approximately 7:30= pm.

The Secretary, Mr. David Hennessey called the roll:

PRESENT:

=

ABSENT:

Peter McNamara, Edmund Gl= eason, David Hennessey, Jeff Gowan, Svetlana (Beloritsky) Paliy, Alternate Cindy Ronning

None.

REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Case #2294= - DAGGETT, Rachel – 351 Mammoth= Road/ML 7/4-186 – By Applicant.

Mr. McNamara believed the case had been decided/reject= ed during the September meeting. Through Counsel, the applicant had filed a brief.

Mr. Hennessey addressed the living space as noted on t= he Town property card (living area: 2414; gross area: 4815). He felt the application for rehear= ing would fail because the addition would exceed 49% of the residential living area. Mr. McNamara believed w= hen the Board asked the applicant’s representative about the living area;= the representative didn’t know and it was left unproven.

Mr. Gleason said he reviewed the information and found nothing that would change his original opinion.

Mr. McNamara said the particular area (the immediate vicinity) on Mammoth Road<= /st1:address> was essentially entirely residential. Mr. Gleason said each case was considered individually and on its own merits; any other cases/businesses, if brought forward would be considered separately.

Mr. McNamara appointed Ms. Ronning to vote upon the re= quest for rehearing since she had voted when it was initially brought before the Board.

All five members were opposed to a motion for rehearing.

The request for rehearing was denied (through a vote o= f 0-5-0).

CONTINUED<= o:p>

Case #2297= – MELANSON, Carl & DRISCOLL, Cheri – 57 Mammoth Road ML 33/1-46 = 211; Seeking a Variance concerning Article III & V, Section 307-8 & 18 to permit the operation of a pre-existing convenience store in a Residential Z= one.

Ms. Paliy recused herself because she was an abutter t= o the property. Ms. Ronning voted i= n place of Ms. Paliy.

Mr. Hennessey read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Mr. McNamara provided a brief history regarding the case. He said a variance had = been granted approximately eighteen months ago; during the Planning Board Site P= lan review it was discovered that the Variance had lapsed because it had not be= en acted on in over one year; the applicant has reapplied for a Variance to operate a pre-existing convenience store in a residential zone.

Attorney Bill Mason, representing the applicant, provi= ded the Board with copies of a plan (that had been presented to the Planning Bo= ard several months ago). He said = the application was basically the same one heard by the Board in 2003 at which point a Variance was granted conditioned upon the building not exceeding the footprint, no storage trailers, all building codes must be met (the buildin= g is to be brought up to code). He= said after the variance was granted the applicant worked with the Planning Direc= tor at that time (Ms. Amy Alexander) to create a site plan (Attorney Mason submitted copies of the site plan to the Board for review – the site = plan circulated was initially submitted to the Planning Board). The former Planning Director indic= ated to the applicant that the site plan would be sufficient to depict to the Planning Board what was intended with the site. In November, 2003 the site plan was reviewed by the Planning Board who indicated they wanted an engineered plan; the applicant continued from that time retaining the services of an enginee= r, which finally resulted in a plan that went before the Planning Board (July 19, 20= 04 and subsequently postponed by the Planning Board pending a meeting with the Board of Adjustment). Attorney Mason made it clear that their position was that they undertook the activat= ion of the variance initially with the Planning Director and going forward to create a document for Planning Board review. That document wasn’t suffici= ent; an engineer was retained to continue to pursue the creation of an engineered p= lan (in furtherance of the variance).

Attorney Mason said the request was the same one heard= in March, 2003, but went on to provide a summary of the property for those who weren’t present at that time. The parcel is a little over three acres with split use (residential/commercial – a copy of the Assessor card was provided to= the Board). The convenience store= had predated zoning. The property= was sold to his clients (June 2001) by a mortgagee who had foreclosed on the property in February 2001 (a copy of the foreclosure deed recorded February 8, 2001= was provided to the Board). All o= f the equipment and shelves were still contained in the store prior to purchase (= photographs of such that were taken within the past year were submitted to the Board).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Attorney Mason asked that the Board include as part of the current record all the minutes, and the deliberation= and exhibits in the earlier variance request (#2249). Mr. McNamara said this was a brand= new hearing and didn’t want to get things confused; he wanted to treat th= is meeting as complete unto itself. Attorney Mason noted that the plan before the Board showed items commented on by the Planning Board.

Mr. Gleason confirmed that in June, 2001 the applicant purchased the property; March, 2003 the first request for variance was submitted. Attorney Mason sai= d in January, 2003 some issues came up regarding the non-conforming status ̵= 1; he reviewed a portion of the statute regarding abandonment. Mr. Gleason confirmed that the app= licant purchased the property in June, 2001; January, 2003 petition for variance; March, 2003 variance was granted – the contention was the applicant w= as back in 2004 because of delays imposed by the Planning Department. Attorney Mason said he wouldn̵= 7;t say that delays were imposed by the Planning Department, but noted that his clients relied on the Planning Director to provide guidance in terms of what the Planning Board wanted to see (and created the plan presented in Novembe= r, 2003 that was rejected). Mr. McNamara said when the Planning Board reviewed the drawing commented that it was not sufficient enough and was deficient in several areas; and come back with an engineered. Attorney = Mason said sometimes it takes more than twelve months to complete a project; engineers are incredibly busy.

Mr. McNamara said because this was a new variance, the abandonment issue would have to be addressed. Mr. Hennessey said one of the reas= ons the variance was granted was to secure an ‘eye sore’. He asked if anything had been done= to the site physically to secure the building and clean it up. Attorney Mason said his clients weren’t going to do anything until they knew they complied with all t= he building codes, which included review by the Planning Board. Mr. Hennessey said there was testi= mony that the building was in ‘tough’ shape (trash on the site). Ms. Cheri Driscoll, the applicant, informed that $50,000 had already been put into the house, but they were not willing to do that with the store unless they could do something with the store.

Mr. Gleason said he was not in favor of granting the variance at the original hearing. He said there had been vandalism (a window was smashed since the variance was granted) but there was no attempt to secure it. He also said that there were curre= ntly cars for sale on the property and there had been, which he didn’t feel was consistent with the variance that was granted. He still didn’t feel that the store had any input or meaningful effort to bring it to a condition that is satisfactory or consistent with the neighborhood. Attorney Mason pointed out that it= was a commercial site not being used commercially right now. He said throughout Town people sol= d cars from time to time on their lots. He said his clients had been pursuing as steadfastly as they could; he had pap= ers showing their efforts. He sai= d the end result, if the variance was granted, was that a somewhat rundown proper= ty would be rehabilitated and would provide a service that it had historically.

Mr. Hennessey asked if any effort had been made to sec= ure a curb cut on Mammoth Road from the state. Attorney Maso= n said an entrance only was shown/proposed off Mammoth Road; if the Planning Board doesn’t want access from Mammoth, his clients wouldn’t go to the state. It was recognized if a= curb cut from Mammoth was wanted, the applicant’s would go to the state for approval or they wouldn’t be able to open the door.

Mr. Gowan said the plan would be a dramatic improvemen= t to the site. He felt the situati= on with the past Planning Department may have come into play and the Town would benefit if the site was brought to the next level.

Attorney Mason then addressed the Variance criteria submitted by the applicant as follows:

Item #1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because: The convenience store is already in existence, and has been in this location for many years. No new constructi= on is proposed to change the configuration of the existing neighborhood convenien= ce store.

Item #2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: the store is a non-conforming use in this residential area. It was closed because the previous= owner lost the property to foreclosure. However, there was no intent to abandon the use of the building as a store; and it continued to be taxed as a commercial use by the Town even wh= en it was closed. The equipment = for operation of the store is still located within the existing building. There is a need in the neighborhoo= d for this store; and the neighbors are in favor of the plans to reopen the store. Letter from the neighb= ors supporting this variance are filed with the Application for Variance.

Item #3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because: =

a) the zoning restriction as applied to their property interferes with the reasonable use of the propert= y, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment such that= : The store is a pre-existing use. = The property had been used for operation of this neighborhood store for many ye= ars, until the prior owner lost the property to foreclosure. Mammoth road is a very busy State highway. The property is not suitable for residential use, given its proximity to Mammoth Road, the paved parking lot= for use of store patrons, and the configuration of the existing store building.=

b) that no fair and substan= tial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because: The store is already in existence and has been in existence for many years in this location. It was operated as a neighborhood convenience store at this location for many years. No expansion of the existing build= ing is proposed. The property is not suitable for residential use.

c) the variance would not i= njure the public or private rights of others since: The store was operating at th= is location for many years. The neighbors are in favor of reopening this convenience store. No expansion of the existing build= ing is proposed.

Item #4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would allow the reopening of the existing neighborhood convenience store. There is a need for this store at = this location, and a desire by the neighbors to have the store reopened.

Item #5. This use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because: The ordinance permits non-conforming uses to continue indefinitely. The store is a non-conforming use.= There will not be any increase in traffic or congestion along Mammoth Road if the store is reopened.

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Mason submitted to the Board a petition signe= d by nine abutters who were not opposed to the re-opening of the variety store in any way, shape, or form. The = names would be checked to ensure the petitioners.

Ms. Svetlana (Beloritsky) Paliy, 50 Mammoth Road, an abutter in oppo= sition to the granting of the variance stated that prior to purchasing her propert= y in June, 2000 she noticed that there was a barn across the street (with a store sign) and an abandoned building. Her real estate agent checked it out and assured her that it was not= a commercial property had been closed for awhile and would need to go before = the boards to re-open. She said s= he would like to keep her neighborhood residential; the store intruded on her property. She said the store = would change the way the area looked. She said she was bothered that she had seen repairs occurring to the store beca= use testimony given to the Planning Board said the store would be opened ‘as-is’. Ms. Paliy reiterated that she wanted her neighborhood remain residential; she discuss= ed the current problems with traffic. She was concerned with the site becoming something different (i.e. gas station)= if the variance was granted. She discussed some of the points brought up at the Planning Board meeting such = as the type of use behind the building, type of deliveries (goods sold), aesthetics etc. and noted her belief that her property value would be decreased. She ended by discu= ssing the amount of time it had taken to come up with a plan for submission and didn’t understand if the store was pre-existing, why it would take so long to open.

Mr. Gowan asked for further explanation how the renova= tion of the store would result in lowering property values. Ms. Paliy said she had attended the meetings during the past year and based upon the renovations done to the ho= use she didn’t believe that renovations would increase property values. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> She submitted a photograph (taken a= fter the Planning Board meeting) that showed fourteen cars parked on the applica= nt’s lot.

Mr. Hennessey questioned why Ms. Paliy’s feelings weren’t shared by the other neighbors. Ms. Paliy said she spoke with seve= ral people (an attorney and real estate agents) regarding commercial property a= nd was informed that once a property was ‘commercial’ there was no control over what happened to it; and was also informed that commercial property lowered surrounding property values.

There was further discussion regarding the applicant&#= 8217;s request. Mr. Gleason said he = felt strongly that the property was abandoned and that abandonment existed becau= se of the applicant’s failure to correct vandalism damage. He didn’t see anything that = would constitute pursuit of improvement. <= /span>

Attorney Mason said his clients recognize that the sto= re would not be opened ‘as is’ and there needed to be substantial = structural/cosmetic improvement. He said his clie= nts had spent considerable time and money rehabilitating their home, and had th= en turned their attention to the store. He then addressed the parked car issue and explained that the applic= ants had given permission to neighbors of the convenient store to park their car= s on the lot while their driveways were being paved.

The Board discussed the abandonment issue. The sense o= f the Board (Mr. Gowan, Mr. Hennessey and Ms. Ronning) that there was no abandonment. Mr. Gleason opposed. Mr. McNamara did not= give his opinion.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Hennessey/Gowan) The building is not to exceed the footprint, no storage trailers, all building codes must be met (the build= ing is to be brought up to code).

=

VOTE:

(4- 1 - 0) The motion ca= rried. Mr. Gleason voted no.

BALLOT VOTE= :

=

Mr. McNamara – Yes to all criteria

Mr. Gleason – No to all criteria

Mr. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria (with stipulations)

Mr. Gowan – Yes to all criteria

=

VOTE:<= /o:p>

Ms. Ronning – Yes to all criteria

(4-1-0) The motion carried.   Mr. Gleason voted no.

VARIANCE GRAN= TED

Ms. Paliy returned to the Board.

Case #2301= – VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS – 6 Main Street/ML 22/7-251 – Seeking = an Appeal of the Zoning Administrator that a Special Exception is required for fraternal organizations & membership clubs.

Mr. Hennessey recused himself because he is a member o= f the VFW. Mr. McNamara appointed M= s. Ronning to vote in Mr. Hennessey’s absence.

Mr. Gleason read the list of abutters aloud. There wer= e no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Mr. Charlie Mooskian, Commander of the John H. Hargrea= ves Memorial Post Veterans of Foreign Wars #10722 and Mr. David Hennessey, memb= er of the Veterans of Foreign Wars met with the Board to discuss the Appeal of= the Administrative Decision. Mr. = Hennessey submitted that this case was different than others because the Legislative = Body of the Town (Town Meeting) had already voted to make the change from one non-conforming use to another. He reviewed Article #45 as contained on the ballot. It was Mr. Hennessey’s opini= on that the affirmative vote constituted a zoning change.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. William Hayes, 5 Main Street, said the Town Meeting voted, howe= ver Town Meeting’s powers are not absolute and are defined by the New Hampshire Legislature, which had specific requirements for zoning ordinance amendments (that could not be done by a single petition warrant article). He noted that there were specific requirements (public hearing) and special format for the ballot question, therefore the warrant article that determined that the Town should transfer= the property did not amend the Zoning Ordinance. He felt it was bad law to suggest = that the warrant article amended the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Victor Danevich, speaking as an individual Selectm= en (not representing the Board of Selectmen), was opposed to granting an appeal. He referred to RSA 67= 4:54, I Governmental Land Uses, which he read aloud and noted that the building h= ad been in that use. He then ref= erred to the Town’s Zoning Ordinance, Section 307-18, Table 2 Principal Permitted Uses for Fraternal organizations & membership clubs in Residential District by special exception (Fraternal organization as define= d in RSA 72:23-a). Mr. Danevich po= inted out that the Town voters had adopted the Zoning Ordinance. He then pointed out and read aloud= the Site Plan Regulations, Section 248-50, Change of Occupancy. He did not support the appeal, but= said he did support the Special Exception in the next case (#2302).

Mr. Hennessey said the Town people voted to put the ordinance into affect with the districts as specified. He discussed what steps could be t= aken if the appeal was turned down; it was his position that the voters changed = the use of the government building therefore, the zoning regulations/special except= ion didn’t apply because an appeal would go to the same people who had already voted to make the change. Mr. Gleason questioned if Mr. Hennessey was implying that when the v= oters voted, they did so cognizant of the regulations. Mr. Hennessey said when the Legisl= ative Body voted they determined not only to turn over ownership, but to determine use. Mr. Gleason believed the people were aware of what they were doing but were assuming that the VFW wo= uld comply with all the existing regulations of the Town. Mr. Hennessey respectfully disagre= ed and believed the use was predetermined by the warrant article.

Mr. Gowan agreed with Mr. Hayes’ comment that no zoning question had credence on a ballot if it didn’t follow, at a minimum, specific postings and public hearings in advance.

Mr. McNamara felt Mr. Hennessey made a good argument, = but in the absence of any kind of statutory authority or case law to support the argument, the Board had to rely on the fact that current zoning had to be complied with.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Gleason/Gowan) To deny the Appeal of the Zoning Administrator.

=

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed for denial of the appeal.

APPEAL DENIED=

Case 2302 = – VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS – 6 Main Street/ML 22/7-251 – Seeking a Special Exception concerning Article XII, Section 307-73 & 307-75 to al= low a change of use from a Municipal Office to a VFW (fraternal organization &a= mp; membership club). Seeking a Variance concerning Article XII, Section 307-75 (c) is being sought to allow parking within the setback and without being screened from view.

* note: Mr. He= nnessey had stepped down for the previous case (#2301); Ms. Ronning had been appoin= ted to vote in his absence.

Mr. McNamara noted that the abutters had previously be= en read aloud (during Case #2301).

Mr. Charlie Mooskian, Commander of the John H. Hargrea= ves Memorial Post Veterans of Foreign Wars #10722 and Mr. David Hennessey, memb= er of the Veterans of Foreign Wars met with the Board to discuss the Special Exception and Variance being requested.&nb= sp; Mr. Hennessey said the Special Exception was covered in the approved uses (as a Fraternal Veteran Organization) but the problem was that the Zon= ing Ordinance does not allow parking within the setback (sideline). He said the building had parking a= long the sideline (as it always had) directly off the side road, and in order to= go ahead with the Special Exception they needed a variance in order to allow t= he existing configuration of the lot without additional paving and parking.

Mr. Gleason asked if it would constitute a continuatio= n of a non-conforming use (for area and use).&nbs= p; Mr. Hennessey said the Planning Director told them to come forward w= ith the variance request. Mr. Gle= ason was concerned regarding the frontage, setbacks and brought up the septic. Mr. Hennessey said it was one non-conforming use to another, but the property use would be less use than = the previous. Mr. McNamara pointe= d out unless a variance was granted, they could not have a special exception. It was noted that the variance wou= ld be for ‘area’. Mr. Hennessey said this was a pre-existing non-conforming use going to another non-conforming use (specified in the Table for non-conforming uses).

Item #1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because: Proper= ty use will be less intensive than prior use.

Item #2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The public indicated its intent by allowing the transfer to the VF= W.

Item #3. Denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship to the owner because: =

a) the zoning restriction as applied to their property interferes with the reasonable use of the propert= y, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment such that= : Parking has been as is now, for decades.

b) that no fair and substan= tial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because: The configuration to the parking has been in place for many years.

c) the variance would not i= njure the public or private rights of others since: No change in configuration. <= /p>

Item #4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would abide by vote of the people of Pelham.

Item #5. This use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because: The people have indicated their wishes.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. William Hayes questioned if the Board was consider= ing the variance or the special exception.&nbs= p; He said the Board had to decide whether a valid notice had been posted. Mr. McNamara said the official posted notice identified that the VFW was seeking a Special Except= ion to Article XII, Section 307-73 & 307-73 and should have read Article XII, Section 307-73 & 307-75. Mr. Hayes raised another procedural error and addressed the fact that the Town had a Conflict if Interest Ordinance. He knew that a member of the board= had the same rights as the public, however it was a separate thing to become an advocate before a board on which a person served. He felt the Board should review the Conflict of Interest Ordinance. Mr. Hayes felt it was appropriate for Mr. Hennessey, as an interested citizen, = to testify, but it was another matter to represent/advocate in front of a Board that he sat.

Mr. McNamara said the Board didn’t have authorit= y to have someone recuse him or her self from the Board. He said in this case, Mr. Hennessey stepped down and felt he had the right to come before the Board and testify. Mr. Gowan believed t= he impartiality of the Board was evident in the denied case in which Mr. Henne= ssey was advocating. Mr. Gleason s= aid he would like to review the Conflict of Interest Ordinance and how it might be applicable to the case. Mr. Hennessey said he had not advocated other than reading the stipulations; he said he would leave the room and recuse himself if the Board wanted. He said he was not the spokesman, = or an officer of the VFW. A majorit= y of the Board members believed it was up to Mr. Hennessey whether or not to rec= use himself. Mr. Hayes believed w= hen members were sworn in they should receive a copy of the Conflict of Interest Ordinance.

The Board then discussed the posting issue. There was a consensus of the Board= that the posting was in error. Mr. Mooskian questioned if they had to come back, and if so, would the ‘slate’ be clean and both cases heard again. Mr. McNamara said the first case (= #2301) was posted correctly and the Board already voted. Mr. Mooskian asked if the original= meeting had been posted correctly. Mr. Gleason had the agenda from the original (October 14, 2004) and said it was also incorrect.

There was a brief discussion regarding when the case c= ould be heard again. Mr. Mooskian = said he would be having major surgery on November 29, 2004 and would not be available for thr= ee to five months. Mr. McNamara sai= d the Board would discuss the possibility of meeting sooner that the December meeting. Mr. Mooskian the difficulties placed on him because of a Town posting error. Mr. McNamara said he would speak t= o the Planning Director regarding an alternate meeting date. Mr. Mooskian questioned Mr. Hennessey’s position. M= r. Gleason said he would review the Conflict of Interest Ordinance.

Mr. McNamara said Case #2302 would be continued to an undetermined time.

Mr. Hennessey returned to the Board.

HEARINGS

BRIDGEFORD= , Holly – 78 Webster Avenue/ML 30/11-253 – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III, Section 307-13 & 14 to permit the construction of a detach= ed 24ft.x24ft. two-story garage on an existing non-conforming lot that does not meet minimum lot size requirements or minimum frontage requirement in the Residential Zone.

Mr. Hennessey read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Ms. Holly Bridgeford met with the Board to discuss her variance request and read aloud the variance criteria as follows:

Item #1. The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because: The proposed building will be of high quality construction. It will be an aesthetically pleasi= ng addition to the property.

Item #2. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The proposed building will upgrade the value of the property in question, as well as enhancing the neighborhood. Several properties in the neighbor= hood have existing garages on non-conforming lots.

Item #3 Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance result in unnecessary hardship:

a= )      = the area Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property because: The non-conforming lot is a lot that was pre-existing when the area and frontage requirements were introduced. The lot met all existing requirements when it was developed.

b= )      = the benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because: There is no addition= al land to be purchased in order to conform to zoning.

Item #4. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: Construc= tion of a garage is normal and customary usage for a residential lot.

Item #5. This use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because: Despite the fact the existing lot is undersized in both area and frontage, all other setback requirements will be met.

Mr. Gleason asked if the proposed structure would be t= wo stories and questioned if a rest facility would be added. Ms. Bridgeford said the garage wou= ld be two stories, the area above the garage would be a ‘bonus’ room = and may add a restroom. Mr. Gleas= on asked if the capacity of the septic system was known. Ms. Bridgeford said the septic was reviewed, but she was unable to identify the capacity.

Mr. McNamara asked how long the property had been owne= d. Ms. Bridgeford said she had resided at the residence her entire life, and purch= ased the property from her mother approximately four years ago.

Mr. Hennessey asked if a site assessment had been done= for the property. Ms. Bridgeford = was not sure. Mr. Hennessey asked= what the fifteen foot easement would be used for. Ms. Bridgeford said it would be us= ed by the electric company. Mr. Hen= nessey asked if anyone was directly behind the applicant’s lot that a two st= ory garage would block their view. Ms. Bridgeford said her home was currently two stories and didn’t believe anyone’s view would be blocked. Mr. Hennessey said the Shoreline Protection Act restricted height to 24ft.; he asked if this would be a problem. Ms. Bridgeford wasn’t sure w= hat the height was.

Mr. Gleason was concerned with the septic and said any variance considered would have to have a stipulation, for approval from the Health Officer, or a site assessment. Mr. McNamara said he had a concern regarding the height of the addition. He asked if the bui= lding had been designed. Ms. Bridge= ford answered yes. Mr. Hennessey believed the Board should walk the site.&n= bsp; Mr. Gleason said if a site walk was done, he wanted the height and septic issues addressed.

Ms. Paliy questioned the aesthetics. Ms. Bridgeford said the garage wou= ld match the house. She provided= the Board with a copy of the design for the garage.

A site walk was scheduled for November 13, 2004 at 9am.&nbs= p;

The Case was continued to December 13, 2004.

DISCUSSION=

Mr. Hennessey said he had read the Conflict of Interest (Chapter 48) and didn’t feel that it applied to Case #2301 or #2302.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said he would act within the la= w and would not appear before the Board. He wanted it known that his speaking for the VFW (from which he rece= ived no financial gain, and was not an officer) was not a conflict of interest.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

MINUTES

July 12, 2004

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Gleason/Gowan) To approve the July 12, 2004 meeting minut= es as amended.

=

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

August 9, 2004=

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Gleason/Gowan) To approve the August 9, 2004 meeting minut= es as amended.

=

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

September 13, 2004

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Gleason/Hennessey) To approve the September 13, 2004 meeting = minutes as amended.

=

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

October 14, 2004 – deferred to the n= ext scheduled meeting.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

To adjourn the meeting.

=

VOTE:

(5- 0 - 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:10pm.

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Respectfully submitted,

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Charity A.L. Willis     &n= bsp;

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Recording Secretary